The expatriate Bangalees in the west with a taste of liberal democracy have been in the illusion over the last fifteen years that their beloved homeland will soon embrace true democracy. What has happened in the last four years to this end is well known.

The liberal democracy dream has been dashed.

It is now clear that Bangladesh has to live with a "sort of democracy" under the rules of civil politicians like a "sort of democracy" currently enjoy by our Muslim brothers and sisters in Pakistan under General Parvez Musharraf.

What the nation experienced in the last four years under an elected regime is normally witnessed with a military-led democracy as introduced by General HM Ershad in the 1980s. Even in some respects the military-led democracy under HM Ershad was far less heavy-handed towards opposition than the current civilian-led democracy. With the space allowed here, it is not possible to engage in assessing credibly the democracy's degeneration. We, therefore, rely on a pick and chose method for arguing our case.

Let us consider first some incidents in the parliament and in its surroundings which give rise to a permanent culture of House boycott. One would remember that during the immediate past regime (1996-2001), on one occasion, the BNP opposition MPs led by Saifur Rahman and B Chowdhury ransacked the House and came out of the session throwing files and microphones towards the Speaker's podium.

Since that incident, the BNP was under the impression that there was no point in attending the House under the AL government and was abstaining to such time until their seats had been under threat due to constitutional bindings. It is now in the record that the then Opposition Leader (Khaleda Zia) attended parliament for only 29 days over 1996-2001. Eventually, when her membership was about to relinquish due to a constitutional binding, she gave in and made a token attendance to keep her membership alive immediately before the general election 2001.

During the BNP-Jamaat regime (2001-present), the table has turned and it is now AL's time to reciprocate. Recently, a report suggests that the Opposition Leader will have to relinquish her membership if she does not attend the current session due, once again, to constitutional binding. What move the Opposition Leader takes this time still remains to be seen. It is, however, noticeable in the case of AL members that at least they maintained a decent manner when walking out of the parliament and no drama of file and microphone throwing has occurred.

Next, let us look at what has been happening outside the House, particularly, on the street. Once again, one can draw a parallel between the regimes under Sheikh Hasina and Khaleda-Nizami, but with a mind-boggling difference in recent times. Over 1996-2001, the streets of Dhaka were partly captured by the AL cadres and pro-government police. The opposition BNP had slightest opportunity to come out and control the main streets of Dhaka. Nevertheless, there was an incident that occurred in the compound of the High Court building which cannot be ignored due to historical reasons, although it may be seen as a minor incident.

The BNP high ranking lawyers and Barristers (Moudud Ahmed, Nazmul Huda, and others) intruded into the vicinity of the office of the former Chief Justice (CJ) on one fine morning. Taking the law into their own hands, I hope the readers will remember, they smashed the office doors and windows of the sitting CJ and shouted abuse against him. Ironically, this judge subsequently played the role of Head of the CTG in the 2001 election.

The government of the day (AL), for some unknown reasons, failed to protect the sanctity of the highest court of the land. But, at the same time, the then government was seen taking severe steps against the street agitators that left the AL in disrepute in the eyes of the general public.

During the Khaleda-Nizami regime, however, things have gone from bad to worse. The streets already have been captured by the BNP cadres, and the pro-government police action on the street agitators surpassed all the past records.

Moreover, the grenade attack on the rally of the opposition AL on August 21, 2004 with an attempt on the lives of the opposition leader and her senior colleagues has no parallel. Sheikh Hasina escaped the carnage with some injuries, but her long-term associate, Ivy Rahman, and 21 of her workers were killed and hundreds injured in the carnage.

The assassination of SAMS Kibria and Ahasanullah Master, both sitting Members of Parliament, further add to the list of atrocities committed against the opposition AL during the present regime. The Khaleda-Nizami regime has dismally failed to give protection to the sitting Opposition Leader and her senior colleagues over the past four years.

Under these circumstances, is there any peaceful way out? We do not think so because there is an inherent rivalry between AL and BNP. Until and unless this diminishes to a tolerant level there will be no respite. Why this unrepairable rivalry in politics? There are many reasons, most importantly political, institutional, economic, and personal. Let us highlight the political only reasons below:

First, one would remember that immediately after the demise of the regime of President Ershad in 1990, on the issue of future democratic governance, the AL and the BNP were at loggerheads. The AL went for a parliamentary type of governance while the BNP wanted a presidential form. The AL won the day because there was a popular support for the parliamentary governance. The AL's win over BNP was short lived since the BNP with the support of Jamaat formed the government in 1991. After assuming power, the first government of Khaleda Zia, right from the beginning, was indifferent about the Westminster style of governance. Instead, her first regime was regarded as a de facto presidential form. Her style as Leader of the House has not changed to a large extent even now.

Second, we all know that the 1991 election was held under a CTG headed by Justice Shahabuddin Ahmed. Subsequently, the AL successfully generated a popular movement against the BNP government to keep the caretaker system running for all subsequent general elections (due to BNP indifference on the irregularities at Magura and Manikgonj by-elections?). The BNP was against this idea initially, but due, once again, to popular demand, gave in and amended the constitution along the lines of a CTG system, introduced in 1991.

What does this mean? Over the last fifteen years, the BNP always sided against the popular reforms concerning election issues and certainly acted like a military-led regime. In contrast, the AL always fought for popular causes and tried to establish people's choice through reform. In other words, it may not be unwise to conclude that the BNP is a party of maintaining status quo, while the AL committed to changes for better outcome in politics and to create a level playing field. Why?

Presently, under the 14-party alliance, the AL, once again, is fighting for reforming the existing CTG system due to the reasons Khaleda-Nizami government created (recent controversy about the next chief of the CTG). If the incumbent is so confident about their good work, the question is, why then create such a controversy by knowing clearly that the opposition will pick this up as a pretext? As expected, the BNP, by taking the opposite stand, remains firm against reforming the CTG. At the end of the day, the 14-party alliance with popular support will make the BNP, once again, give in.

However, the question remains, like in the past, is there any guarantee of holding a free and fair election in 2007 under a reformed CTG and EC? What about the roles of Rab, Army, and other law enforcement agencies? Is it possible to keep these institutions neutral? The time has come for the 14-party alliance to bite the ultimate bullet and place the right question at the right time: how to keep the Army and Rab out of the picture on the day of election? One must not forget that the ordinary people of both urban and rural Bangladesh still respect but fear the armed forces personnel fitted with guns on their shoulder. Any sign of the forces with full combat gear near the voting centres certainly deters general voters from exercising their franchising right. This creates chaotic environment inside the polling booth and the unscrupulous cadres of politicians take all the advantages for committing irregularities, irrespective of party affiliation.

In conclusion, the 14-party alliance, once again, has a popular demand in hand and it is likely that the demand will be met immediately before the next election due to people's power. However, who cares about the CTG reform? The election engineering in the past reversed the voting outcome not only through the CTG's actions or inactions, but also through some "invisible" hands.

For example, in 2001, an extraordinary number of the AL candidates lost their seats with a margin of mere 2,000 or less votes. The AL's suspicions on this incident cannot be ruled out outright. While the 14-party alliance is preparing for a fight against election engineering in the future, it would not be easy to achieve a satisfactory outcome with an "invisible" hand at work, even under a reformed CTG.

The CTG reform, while a precondition for holding a free and fair election under the present climate, is however, not sufficient. In this regard, the recent fiasco within the EC immediately comes to mind. It is now an open secret that the CEC alone is not behind all the fuss surrounding the EC about accepting the recent verdict of the HC. This is certainly an alarm bell for the 14-party alliance. The issue of "invisible" hand must be addressed sooner than later, if the nation wants to get rid of the presently existing election-unfriendly climate, once and for all.

Dr Moazzem Hossain is a freelance contributor to The Daily Star.